Obama and Europe - two of the silliest things ever

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Wow, I don't believe it. Someone disagrees with your views, so you want them banned. After all, that is the liberal way: crush all opposing views and hide them from sight (or site in this case). Honestly, that is kinda pathetic.
I mean, you are not up in arms over PJ being a holocaust semi-denier and a Nazi sympathizer, but because someone said something you didn't like about Obama, you wanna ban them. You sure got your priorities straight.

---

There is no method for dealing with (extremely mild) criticism as courageous as pointing to the guy next to you and saying 'but he's worse!'

I do not appreciate being dragged into your back and forth, but I suppose some clarification is in order.

I have never denied that the Holocaust happened. I do believe that it happened, and I think that there is plenty of evidence to support that belief. I have, however, questioned many of the common notions surrounding the event including its uniqueness in the historical record as compared to the actions of other nations, the German public's knowledge of it, the German military's knowledge and complicity in it, its size and scope in relation to other German priorities, and what I see as a Holocaust industry that perpetuates those myths.

In regard to the Nazis, 'sympathizer' has taken on a meaning that belies the word's definition. I sympathize with the German public in the 1920's and 30's and I understand why Nazism held the appeal that it did. I sympathize with the members of German military, including the SS, as I believe the vast majority were well intentioned professionals motivated by the same nationalism and desire to protect their families and their nation that drove Allied soldiers to enlist. I even sympathize with a great number of political Nazis. Their willingness to embrace empire-building militarism was no different than that which built the British, French, Russian, and American empires. I can even understand the twisted utilitarianism embraced by Hitler to justify many of his excesses. None of that means that I support Nazism or its policies.

In general, yes I do see the Second World War in shades of grey and I regard the idea that it was some kind of 'good war' as largely propaganda and a 'written by the victors' historical bias. I see the rise of the Nazis not as a singular event but as the culmination of century-long power struggle between established empires and aspiring ones. And yes, I see the way the Allied nations dealt with peoples they considered subhuman, sometimes only decades before the war, and wonder why the Germans are regarded as uniquely reprehensible. I believe that a lot of people content themselves in the superficial belief that Nazi Germany was some kind of uniquely evil 'other' because a deeper exploration of the state and the people that comprised it would reveal just how similar they were those of the Allies.

I stand by every position I've taken in regard to Germany during the Second World War over the years. I understand that such opinions are not popular, and I have taken plenty of criticism for expressing them. I have never been punished for them as I always source my claims appropriately. I do acknowledge that I come to such discussions with a unique perspective, but your above hack job does not accurately represent that perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

There is no method for dealing with (extremely mild) criticism as courageous as pointing to the guy next to you and saying 'but he's worse!'

I do not appreciate being dragged into your back and forth, but I suppose some clarification is in order.

---

I did not bring you into the conversation for that reason PJ, and nor did I seek to misrepresent your views. You may deny that you are a Nazi sympathizer, but, no offense intended, that is what I consider you. I brought you into the conversation to show the hypocrisy of AtPG. Even though I disagree with a lot of views strongly, I did not make any judgment of them. I simply said that even though you hold a view vastly more controversial than mine, it is not you, but me who AtPG is calling to be banned. I don't think you should be banned, and I don't think that AtPG should say you should. I was simply pointing out AtPG's hypocrisy.

Um, Vuk....

AtPG?

Are you even reading the names of the folks you're complaining about? I did no such thing.

You're so excited about the idea of having a political enemy that you can't even tell us apart anymore. Nothing would help you more than a serious vacation from the realm of politics. It's not healthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I was simply pointing out AtPG's hypocrisy.

---

First of all, ACIN, not AtPG. Second, to definitively show hypocrisy on ACIN's part, you'd need to demonstrate that he considered PJ to be a threat to his status as backroom troll, but failed to issue a tongue-in-cheek call for a ban as a result. Finally, I'm not sure anyone expects that level of consistency in a joke, and condemns its absence as hypocrisy.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Um, Vuk....

AtPG?

---

Sorry, I meant ACIN. I always confuse you guys names for some reason.

The main problem I see with the democratic process is that monied or otherwise politically powerful interests with an already overwhelming stranglehold influence on our Congress now own and operate 24-hour a day "infomercial" stations masquerading as news or legitimate political commentary. They provide the viewing audience, already an ill-informed bunch too lazy to do any research, with a steady and constant stream of two things: You're totally awesome and smart, and THEY are horrendous, corrupt, and dumb on every level.

It's not even about policy differences, because that would require articulating a viewpoint and debating things, which is not interesting to folks who want to only hear about one side and how great it is. It's more about saying that red is good and blue is bad, or blue is bad and red is good. I've watched these networks. I've seen their websites and blogs. I've listened to their talk radio programs for hours at a time, for years. I know exactly what goes on, and why people need to change the station if they're in any way serious about having an adult conversation about politics.

24 hours a day of constant, never-ending campaigning and news-like commentary. There is no break from campaign mode; there is no stopping the smearing of political opponents, no break in the partisan process where people can actually come together and discuss the issues like colleagues, like they have to in order to actually affect change. Instead, from the moment a person gets elected until the day they leave politics forever, they are the enemy that must be slain, or your very close friend and isn't it awful what the other side says about them.

Obama is a pathetically mild center-right candidate in a country that has gone off the deep end regarding right-wing politics. His idea of "socialism" is giving more money to big corporations to help them become greedy, well-funded fat cats again, and forcing poor people to buy for-profit insurance which they couldn't afford in the first place. He's been a disappointment to liberals on many, many levels, since taking office. But if you look anywhere that the media giants with a political bent can reach, which is everywhere, you'll see Obama the socialist partisan liberal extremist. A "too professorial" out-of-touch guy who is also too dumb and too concerned about the poor, at the same time. You'll see a guy who is anti-religion, while also having a dubiously extreme former pastor. He's a Muslim foreigner, whose birth documents are obvious forgeries even to people who can't bother to look at them. He's relentlessly anti-American and weak on defense, while waging wars and ordering raids and even going further than Bush did with regards to hunting terrorists and suspending certain protections that American citizens are supposed to have from overzealous law enforcement. He's simultaneously a communist and a fascist corporatist with fat-cat friends. A weak-willed, spineless, apologist, who is also so radical and dedicated to destroying America that we know with absolute certainty that he will begin tearing America apart and displaying his true political positions, right after he gets re-elected.

He's able to be contradictory things. Fantastic things. Things you'd be sure were utterly :daisy: lies, but Sean Hannity said it and he's wearing a tie, so it must be true. Obama, the completely milquetoast extremist Muslim Christian anti-capitalist fatcat inexperienced insider foreigner from Hawaii, who strongly craves the flesh of little girls. He's basically a child rapist, right?

You know about Soccer riots, where people get in such an emotional frenzy regarding their team or the sport in general, that they start behaving like mindless maniacs and end up putting dozens of people in the hospital or worse? That's what is happening with our politics. It's just a game, red versus blue, and the world will come to an end if our team loses. Those across the political aisle are evil and they're coming in the dark of the night to take your jobs and rape your babies, and if we don't start holding more rallies with our firearms proudly displayed, America will be destroyed forever.

You see this video where Obama is helping a young woman down a flight of steps? When he turns and offers the young woman his hand, as he's looking down at the actual steps to keep his footing, another woman walks up the steps. And in a brief moment, it sorta looks like he's checking her out, but he's not.

Now we know for sure that Obama is a lecherous womanizer who wants to have sex with your children. That's not even in dispute, that's on camera, on the public record, for folks who can look at something and see something entirely different and report what they've seen to everyone else with not an excessive amount of completely legitimate moral outrage, with a straight face.

You're drinking the Kool-Aid, Vuk. They put poison in it, man. I'm just asking you to switch to water for a while, for your own good.

Because I do not think you're bad, or evil, or dumb, or anything. I think you're a perfectly fine, normal person, who has gotten caught up in a game you cannot win because it hurts you before it even begins to hurt your opponents.

We really need an "eating popcorn" smilie.
Also, hey pizza. Backroom's been boring without you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

We really need an "eating popcorn" smilie.

---

:laugh4:

Was thinking exactly the same.

It would go well with: :coffeenews: :smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

We really need an "eating popcorn" smilie.

---

:pop2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

:pop2:

---

Perfect!
:pop2:

Do PJ's views sometimes make me uncomfortable?

Yes.

Do I occasionally have to make sure I didn't accidentally go to stormfront?

Yes.

But he's just so damn eloquent. I will literally find him in real life and hire him as my speech writer if I ever run for office. Plus I agree with him on essentially everything besides.... the controversial bits people take exception to.

The Backroom has a a very high ceiling when it comes to controversial stuff.

The problem is that the OP here does not consist of arguments. THAT is what ticks people off, not the level of controversy in the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The problem is that the OP here does not consist of arguments.

---

DING DING DING DING

Vuk can stay, I just hope at some point he sees the error of his ways.

PJ is still a dirty little fascist. I would love nothing more than to tie him up and pour hot wax all over is hairless Aryan body

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

... (say for instance if this France, or some other Third-World country's President).

So Euro-weiners, what do you think of our beloved President now? How do you think he views Europe?

---

I find it hilarious that you say that France is a Third-World country.

Granted Obama isn't living up to the steep expectations but this is reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peasant Phill

Granted Obama isn't living up to the steep expectations but this is reality.

---

Reality is also that these high-expectations were really there, it was pathetic how what Vuk calls euroweenies acted as if the Messias had returned. Not Vuk's fault they now look like the idiots they really are. A little bit of disrespect for Europe we should be able to just deal with no, as if us euroweenies are all nuance when it comes to the US

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

So Obama was supposed to be the President who made everyone in the world love us, who was super intelligent, who was charismatic, and would usher in a new age of diplomacy, where all of our longtime alliances would be strengthened, and we would make new ones elsewhere.
When I see videos like this one, I cannot help but to laugh at that idea:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erYpXzE9Pxs

This guy is frankly embarrassing.
Pictures of world leaders laughing at his pathetic antics don't help either.
https://img252.imageshack.us/img252/...eceofshame.jpg
https://img337.imageshack.us/img337/...ceofshame2.jpg

What must the world think of a country that elects that as President? We must be the laughing stock for voting that guy into office! A Harvard educated man who is not creative or intelligent enough to think of more than two different speeches to deliver to all our allies, a middle-aged married man who cannot take his eyes off of some 16 year old's butt, a great orator who can stutter more in one speech than Dubya and Clinton put together in their entire lives, and the bleeding genius who believes that there are 57 states in the US! If it wasn't so sad, it may be funny (say for instance if this France, or some other Third-World country's President).

So Euro-weiners, what do you think of our beloved President now? How do you think he views Europe?

---

You should also do a bit more research. I've seen the video clip that your third photo was pulled from. He was actually turning around to offer his hand to the woman coming down the steps behind him. The reason he is looking down is he is in the middle of cautioning her against how high the step is. It's quite obvious when you see the video that he is not doing anything creepy.

Why does this thread even have four pages? Are you taking his political views so seriously that you're willing to spend a good portion of your spare time discussing them?

Quote:

---

I simply said that even though you hold a view vastly more controversial than mine

---

Heh. You should look up the thread where I called 300 a racist film. I was personally attacked and suspected of sympathising with al-Qa'ida. Speaking of impopular or controversial views.

To derail this thread completely:

300 is a ridiculous film, and has it all backwards. In order for freedom(tm) to win, the persians had to win. Spartas victory ensured the continuation of their hellish totalitarian system.

All of you are wrong. Vuk is completely right about my intentions and I will state them loud and clear right now.

Vuk, I am a liberal. And Thus, I want you out of this backroom because I disagree utterly with everything you write and due to my liberal brain, I cannot comprehend nor tolerate your rational brain anymore.

I want PJ banned as well for understanding the mind of a 1940s German citizen. Because my liberal sensitivities are hurting right now at the thought that anyone can sympathize with someone who may have kind of liked Hitler.

Also, I am very dissapointed in you AtPG. You should know better than to be mean to people and be hypocritical at that.

https://i1160.photobucket.com/albums...ero/thread.jpg

The video itself is humorous, but the rest of the OP is utter rubbish and I don't like President Obama myself, but the OP is not a good reason for disliking him.

Here's a much more thoughtful, reasoned critique than the op:

[Obama]'s a racist hatemonger. Just to be clear. So much for hope and change. Hope is what he promised. Hate is what he’s delivering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

To derail this thread completely:

300 is a ridiculous film, and has it all backwards. In order for freedom(tm) to win, the persians had to win. Spartas victory ensured the continuation of their hellish totalitarian system.

---

You mean like the way for Nazism to be defeated meant the Western powers had to effectively unleash Bolshevism on the world. Hmm actually seems quite the same whichever way you spin 300.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Heh. You should look up the thread where I called 300 a racist film. I was personally attacked and suspected of sympathising with al-Qa'ida. Speaking of impopular or controversial views.

---

Fascist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Fascist

---

Personally I find it funnier that that goadherder Alm%^&*^Idunno called 300 an attack on muslim culture. There wasn't any at the time , bit of a 700 year's gap between. beeeeeeeh

Ahmadinejad?

No, but it does fit into the stereotypical Orientalist portrayal of the Middle-East, either pre- or post-Islamic.

One would have to be looking to be offended.

What is the basis of the offense? That the Persians who weren't Muslims in the comic book nor in the real world equivalent period of time, generations later took up Islam. Therefore it is an attack on Islam?

That's like saying the Spartans who were a ruthless bunch of slave owners who fought with the Athenian democracy... That the Spartans are some sort of Proto Christian freedom fighters. Bollocks.

If people are looking to be offended by live action comic books that have loose connections to an ancient world, then you cannot do anything to please them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

To derail this thread completely:

300 is a ridiculous film, and has it all backwards. In order for freedom(tm) to win, the persians had to win. Spartas victory ensured the continuation of their hellish totalitarian system.

---

Perisa was a total feudal autocracy. The King of Kings treated his subjects well but they had zero "freedom" and if Persia had one Athens and the other democratic states would have been utterly crushed and political thought would have stagnated

So I hope your post was an unfunny joke.

As far as Sympathising with the Third Reich, if you take away the Death Camps it is not really much worse than any other state at the time. The NAZI regime just brought German efficiency to the type of ethnic cleansing the British and French had been practicing since before the First World War. As far as I know PJ's main contention is that Stalin was worse than Hitler, and who can really argue with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

One would have to be looking to be offended.

What is the basis of the offense? That the Persians who weren't Muslims in the comic book nor in the real world equivalent period of time, generations later took up Islam. Therefore it is an attack on Islam?

That's like saying the Spartans who were a ruthless bunch of slave owners who fought with the Athenian democracy... That the Spartans are some sort of Proto Christian freedom fighters. Bollocks.

If people are looking to be offended by live action comic books that have loose connections to an ancient world, then you cannot do anything to please them.

---

How about, that Xerxes was fair skinned, not black? That if you cut a Persian's hair and trimmed his beard he could pass for a Greek?

300 paints the Persian Wars as an ethnic conflict between East and West, Western Freedom vs Eastern Theological-totalitarianism.

That would be pretty offensive to a Persian. To be honest though, the people that should really be offended are the Spartans.

All the points made above would have been valid, if not for the words of Frank Miller himself. I mean, he's basically equating Islamic radicals with the antagonists in 300​. I don't know.

Quote:

---

Perisa was a total feudal autocracy. The King of Kings treated his subjects well but they had zero "freedom" and if Persia had one Athens and the other democratic states would have been utterly crushed and political thought would have stagnated

---

I'm not really sure this is kinda true. Essentially, citizens under Persian law may have had more freedom than the same citizens under Athenian law. Of course, the Athenian form of democracy was incredibly limited and the idea of a democratic institution within Sparta is laughable. And let's not overplay the Athenian idea of justice: Socrates was sentenced to death and one of Hippocrates' personal friends was executed for performing astronomy.